Episodes

Article Info

Tagged as:

Radio Free Mormon: 042: Elder Oaks Puts the Con into General Conference PART 1

Today On Radio Free Mormon, RFM and Bill Reel dissect Elder Oaks October 2018 General Conference talk from Saturday Morning. In this talk Elder Oaks uses logical fallacy after logical fallacy and bad argument after bad argument in defending his Anti-Science prejudice and his Anti-LGBT bigotry. This 15 minute minute talk was a brilliant attempt to entrench the Church in stances that simply don’t hold up to the data and facts. Elder Oaks arguments are full of holes and unlike Ensign Blair’s ship, this vessel of a talk sinks faster by the minute.
PART 1

Wow, Oaks loaded the bases, then Nelson hit the ball outta the park. Home run.
“Lie$, from Sol Lake City, with $aint’n$ Plan, it’s $atan-day Night Lie$!”
“Follow Us, lie upon lie, decept upon decept; only we can save you; the glory to Us!”
Oaks’ talk floored my wife and me, with every other sentence, better than ever told before, from the “Holy Stand” (Alma 31). Dr. Rusty (Death) Nelson was in for a hard act to follow, but He delivered in flying colors too. True revelation, of their fruits.

GenCon, the Only True Con, from Their lord.
BTW, who Is that masked man, the Father of these Chief Pharisees? John 8: 38-48
“Obey Us and pay Us or our omnipotent father will steal all the blessings you had and toss you in the oven forever.”

By their fruits ye Shall know them, if, you have eyes to hear and ears to see.

I simply visualize in my mind (a vision!) what happened after GenCon: Dr. Nelson and Attorney Oaks bragging about Who most boldly commanded lies in the lord’s name (Matt 7: 20-24) to the clamoring flock and how they will follow anything They say.
“Evil is the new good!”, Isaiah 5: 20-21

I dislike the lds tread ching that satan is essential to God’s plan and yet God treats him as a sin of perdition and whip send him to outer darkness. Satan should be considered a co-savior. How can LDS be considered just or living and behave in that way?

I dislike the lds teaching that satan is essential to God’s plan and yet God treats him as a sin of perdition and whip send him to outer darkness. Satan should be considered a co-savior. How can LDS God be considered just or living and behave in that way?

They are dinasours, and i believe they know their time is coming to a close. So the story and the laguage will get bolder as the become more fear based. Wake up and think for yourself, or live under the umbrella of lies and fantasy created by the patriarc.

I understand that we don’t really know who wrote the essays, but I would argue that by putting them in their website the church is claiming some sort of ownership.

Also, speaking of anonymous internet sources, RFM maybe anonymous, but if he points you to trustable, verifiable sources, what’s wrong if the middle man remains unknown? He’s not the source, he’s just leading you to it. Oaks’ point is a flawed one.

Most of us here are aware that the Church’s “Handbook of Instructions” contains the guidelines (think ‘rules’) of day-to-day dealings for bishops to lead their members.

As I came up with a few casual observations about this damaging talk after reflecting on your podcast, I realized that in several important issues, Pres. Oaks *contradicted* statements in the Church’s “Handbook!”

EUTHANASIA: While this IS counseled against in the “Handbook,” the Church allows victims of suicide to have their funerals in chapels. They may also have their temple ordinances done. This must not be such a sin as he describes, if these allowances are made!

EARLY MARRIAGE: There is nothing in the “Handbook” that would specifically require or encourage members to marry early, which Pres.Oaks seems to indicate is a commandment.

BIRTH CONTROL: The “Handbook” specifically reads that the decision of when to have children rests with the couple, and that no one should judge another couple on this matter. But when Oaks chastises members for delaying marriage and delaying having their children, he is judging them by making this statement!

ABORTION: While Pres.Oaks states that abortions are not approved by the Church, the “Handbook” says three situations allow for abortions: pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, concern for the life of the mother, and concern that the fetus has severe defects and won’t survive very long after its birth.

Why would he contradict these guidelines from the Church? I agree with you; he’s doubling down on the 1950’s version of “the rules,” hoping he can make the members forget progress the Church has made in these specific areas.

The fearmongering is alive and kicking. This horrific talk, along with Nelson’s, pushed the envelope of cognitive dissonance. The TBMs ate it up and are passing on the hateful narrative. Everyone else on the Mormon belief scale is shocked, saddened, angry and pushed out of the church. Those who are gay or have loved ones who are gay are shocked, worried, hurt and lessened. So freaking frustrating. This is not my church. I’m embarrassed to be Mormon. And sorry, I will continue to use the label MORMON.

It is the Bible and the Book of Mormon that shall confound false doctrines, not saying of modern people.

2 Nephi 3:12 Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.

Current LDS leaders doubt the teachings of past LDS leaders all the time. In addition to doubting the past teachings, more current LDS leaders have even renounced doctrines that were stated to be from God.https://seekingyhwh.com/2018/09/19/doubt/

President Oaks’s criticism of “anonymous” internet sources may have an even more sinister effect/intent: to cause LDS church members to doubt the myriad of anonymous stories that Sam Young posts of improper youth interviews and abuse.

As much as I enjoy the banter between Bill and RFM, I think you could have saved yourself a lot of time by simply lumping all conference talks under the same heading: A blatant appeal to authority in the guise of a supposedly inspirational tale of questionable authenticity. With the possible exception of Uchdorf, I think that’s all they do in every conference.

What’s of most interest to me is that both Oaks and Nelson, in this past gathering, returned to issues that they’ve been pushing for literally decades. Oaks’ contribution to the Proclamation is well documented. Nelson gave a Conference address on the church name 28 years ago. These are old white men with axes to grind and questionable self awareness.

If there are victims here, it’s the millions of moral, honest, hardworking members who continue to believe the tall tales and fearmongering, and continue to give hard-earned dollars to a multi-billion dollar corporation.

As I was listening to this talk, it seemed that among the logical fallacies, there were also many non sequitur as well. The most glaring is regarding the eternalness of gender.

If gender is an essential “eternal” characteristic, then why and how, when we enter any of the lesser kingdoms to an outcome of the “TK smoothie”, or a neutral gender, with no differentiating phenotype, can gender be eternal. Gender would thus cease to be eternal because it becomes a useless characteristic. No marriage, no children, no sex, etc. it would appear gender, or what the church truly values about gender, is no longer…not eternal at all.

Just a thought path that I had never before tread. It’s so fascinating to listen to the analysis of these talks. As a TBM for so long, the critical thinking skills become dull. RFM and Bill are sharpening those long lost skills. Thanks you

God cannot allow same sex relationships, and there is a perfectly logical reason why. It would make him a liar, and he will never place himself in a situation where he can be accused of lying by anyone.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your Message:

Your Name*

Your Email*

Testimonial

I think Bill’s podcasts must have some magic spell on them because my husband listened to a few today and said he agreed with “pretty much everything”. His response was like getting what I wanted on Christmas morning. Thanks Bill.

Angela R.

Contact Mormon Discussions

To contact a specific podcast host or to contact the podcast generally please email MormonDiscussionsPodcasts AT gmail DOT com
Thank you for reaching out!!!

Helpful Resources

Find us On Facebook and Twitter

Support the Podcast and Donate Today

At Mormon Discussions we look to help you navigate Mormonism. Please consider donating today to support our effort to provide Latter-day Saints the tools and resources and the safe space for conversations to navigate a difficult and often lonely faith transition. Donate today to a good cause while supporting Latter Day Saints like you! Your Donation is 100% tax deductible.

Support the Podcast through your Amazon purchases

Please consider making your Amazon purchases through their charity site https://smile.amazon.com and designating Mormon Discussion as your charity of choice. Please click below to get started.

Featured Links

Requested Legal Disclaimer by the LDS Church

Mormon Discussion’s podcast production is certainly not connected to The Mormon Church aka The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It also is most assuredly not approved or endorsed by Intellectual Reserve, Inc or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Any of the awesome content or the solid opinions expressed, implied or included in Mormon Discussion Inc’s awesome podcast lineup and production are solely those of Mormon Discussion Inc. and/or its program hosts and not those of Intellectual Reserve, Inc. or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Mormon Discussion Inc is a 501(c)(3) and is in the arena of journalistic work and is part of a free press. A free press is fundamental to a democratic society. It seeks out and circulates news, information, ideas, comment and opinion and holds those in authority to account. The press provides the platform for a multiplicity of voices to be heard. At national, regional and local level, it is the public’s watchdog, activist and guardian as well as educator, entertainer and contemporary chronicler. Under the “fair use” defense, however, another author may make limited use of the original author’s work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism.

The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner’s exclusive rights.

Subject to some general limitations discussed later in this article, the following types of uses are usually deemed fair uses:

Criticism and commentary: for example, quoting or excerpting a work in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment. A book reviewer would be permitted to quote passages from a book in a newspaper column, for example, as part of an examination of the book.

News reporting: such as summarizing an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report. A journalist would be permitted to quote from a political speech’s text without the politician’s permission.

Research and scholarship: perhaps quoting a short passage in a scholarly, scientific, or technical work for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations. An art historian would be able to use an image of a painting in an academic article that analyzes the painting.

Nonprofit educational uses: for example, when teachers photocopy limited portions of written works for classroom use. An English teacher would be permitted to copy a few pages of a book to show to the class as part of a lesson plan.

Parody: that is, a work that ridicules another, usually well-known, work by imitating it in a comic way. A comedian could quote from a movie star’s speech in order to make fun of that star.